Tired of W. Bush, vol. 2

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by max, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    No, I think you're doing just fine, Jack, and appreciate the tireless research. As for my tenacity, it's reached a limit; I only have so much tolerance for these idiots. Sorry, it's hard for me to play nice when THEY (and not Bush per se) are the reason this country is in the mess it's in. After all, they awarded him a second term based on... I really don't know what, and don't have the gumption to admit the blunder and try to move forward. Take Care.
     
  2. dmastous

    dmastous Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    I don't know why everyone is so tired of Bush. He's great!!!! Fantastic!!!:D
    He only had over 500 all purpose yards against Fresno State on Saturday;)

    Dan
     
  3. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Dan, that's right on time. we could use a little more humor in here, ;)
    -jack
     
  4. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    As I posted before, I think you have misunderstood what your President said. It is not a comparison between what your President knew and what the hundred Democrats knew. It is a comparison between what John Kerry knew and what the hundred Democrats knew.

    Look at the statement in context (from your link):

    And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

    Now, who is the person your President is quoting in the above paragraph? John Kerry. Your president is quoting John Kerry in his speech explaining why he was supporting why he was supporting the resolution in congress.

    Now look at the statement just after the John Kerry quotation. Who is your President referring to when he says "...had access to the same intelligence...? Is he saying that those hundred Democrats had access to the same intelligence as your President did, or is he saying that those hundred Democrats had access to the same intelligence that John Kerry did?

    In context, I don't think it is possible to read it in any other way than that those hundred Democrats who voted with John Kerry had access to the same information that John Kerry did.
     
  5. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    As they say in hermeneutics, "A text apart from its context is a pretext". You can't understand the sentence you quote in bold in isolation from that paragraph as a whole. Your President doesn't talk about himself at all in that whole paragraph, yet somehow that "same intelligence" phrase doesn't refer to the person he's been speaking about in the immediately preceding quote, and the sentence preceding that, when you read it, they only way you are able to understand that paragraph is if it makes your President a liar.
     
  6. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    No, I think the quote has been taken out of context.

     
  7. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    I disagree, but respect your viewpoint. I have much to say, but no time to say it. I'm off to handle my life.

    Take care, and warmest regards
    -Jack
     
  8. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Have fun with your life. I really don't see how in context, you can read the statement as saying Congress had access to the same intelligence as your President. Whilst it is your President talking, he is clearly not talking about himself anywhere in that paragraph.
     
  9. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    What mess? I suppose you will say our economy is bad. You'd be wrong. Tax cuts got us out of the Clinton recession. Tax cuts helped when the center of our economy came crashing down into a pile of rubble. "Idiots," I'm the only one arguing against you. Deluxe only wants one example of your baseless assertions. You can give none. I may be an idiot, but, my point of view doesn't give our enemies a moral boost, nor is it bad for the moral of our forces that are currently on the field.

    Our enemy is bogged down in Iraq. Syria has been forced to withdraw from Lebannon. Libya has given up its weapons program along with the nuclear scientists and money provided by Saddam Hussein. I heard the defense minister of Egypt admit that the war in Iraq has set off and strengthened a pro-democracy movement within Egypt. Maybe a mess, if you want Bush to look bad.

    I will assume that Iraqi's voting is a mess to you. You want anything that makes America or W to look bad. Why else would you criticize the way you do? What is the point? You acknowledge that pulling out would be a disaster.

    Where should we go to fight our enemies? Or, do you believe the enemies we are fighting in Iraq wouldn't exist otherwise? I am assuming you believe our enemies wouldn't follow us whereever we are. We aren't creating more enemies they have been there all along. These people aren't saving their goat herding money to build bombs. In other words, they wouldn't be herding goats, even if we weren't in Iraq. I only hear you guys criticizing W and america ie....Grab an Arab prison, Club Gitmo, Bush lying, torture, killing civilians, flushing books of religion, Bush lied, we are torchoring arabs, the war is all about lies, flushing books, killing innocent people, Saddam wasn't a danger, flushing books, torchoring arabs, prison abuse, Bush lied, 2000 dead, Bush created these terrorists, americas foreign policy created islamo-fascism, Bush lied, CIA is torchoring terrorists, secret prisons in Europe to torchor arabs.................................................................

    I have finally figured it out. Victory in Iraq is the death nell of those that came to power defeating America in Vietnam.
     
  10. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,364
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    This is what you call a serious state of denial.
     
  11. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    I have to agree wtih atatu.
     
  12. Alley Cat

    Alley Cat Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    261
    with a "capital D"
     
  13. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Ditto here...I don't even know how to respond to such "spin". Boy needs to get his facts straight...check that, he needs to get some facts.
     
  14. dmastous

    dmastous Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    It's my feeling we must call a spade a spade (I mean of course a small shovel used for gardening:) ) I am as much of a Clinton detractor as you may be, but Clinton can't be called on the carpet for recession anymore than he can be given praise for a strong economy prior to 2000. The strong economy was due to the double boosts of the personal computer then the internet. The recession was due to 25 year old geniuses being given the keys to the kingdom and (as kids will do) partying on. We paid piper and in some ways the tax cuts help ease the pain. But, Bush has lost control of his spending and the deficit is growing at an alarming rate. It's getting pretty scary. No I don't think the economy is bad now, but it's a house of cards built on a sandy beach. Something needs to be done to shore things up before it all falls down.

    Critizising the Iraq situation is the wrong thing to do. We're there and we need to complete what we started. I just don't know if it's going to go as well as we all hope it will. The elections are an example of progress, but they are also and example of how much trouble we are in for over there. The voting was nearly 100% along religious lines. This shows they just don't get it. When we do leave it may be a very short time before it all blows up again. Maybe this is a negative point of view, but I believe it is a realistic point of view.

    To me there is too much of a double standard. We are so afraid of public opinion that when we want information from a terrorist we have to hand them to the Masad to do what it takes to get the information. This is the same thing as torturing them ourselves, but it must be done for out preservation. Long before we went into Iraq there were stories of torture and killing by the Hussien government. After we took Bagdad the evidence that Hussien, his families and cronies were governing Iraq entirely for their own enrichment was all over. Caches of $100 bills, rich palaces dotting a landscape populated by poverty stricken people. The former rulers were so caring for their people that they used them as shields to protect themselves and went on a campaign of destroying the infrastructure to make us have to work ten times as hard to keep the population feed and cared for.
    Why is it we are called on the carpet for things other governments do as a matter of course? Why can't we be held to the same standards as other governments? We rise above them mostly, but sometime you need to make people feel pain for their transgressions. And I don't beatings, I mean disoreintation and embarrasment. That's considered torture by people who wouldn't think twice about dragging people through contaminated sludge after whipping them so they can get good and infected. I just can't figure out what people are thinking sometimes.
    I think the last statement here is baseless. But to compare Iraq to Vietnam is to completely misrepresent the Vietnam war. Those who do show they have no unbiased view of history.
     
  15. Rory G

    Rory G Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    246
    I have tried to stay out of this one because it is so real and depressing. 2090+ american kids killed; many thousands permanently wounded, many thousands of innocent Iraqis killed....for what? Whether it was lies or misleading statements by the buffoon and his other incompetent henchmen in the administration doesn't matter. Americans are dead because of this sorry excuse for a President. Al Quaeda is bigger than ever and we are billions of dollars in debt. I pray for our children and people like the jerk and deluxe who still support this administration. I am not a "lefty" (although they are looking pretty good right about now) but a Libertarian that has trouble sleeping at night because I voted for this sh**thead in 2000. I will not post again because it is painful to discuss.
     
  16. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Agree. Hey, it's extremely painful for me to read about the continued buffoonery of the Bush administration-buffoonery that has lead to many, many unecessary deaths. Mainly, because I'm powerless to prevent the continuation of such garbage, and also, that we have such morons in our country who can't see the light-how much they've been hoodwinked. However, TALKING about it, VENTING is not all that bad of a therapy.
     
  17. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    Rory, it is painful and not for the squemish. I also pray for the American citizens who went to work one day and had to jump from 40 stories to their deaths in order to prevent an agonizing death by fire. So, as is usually the case in these matters, 90% of Americans can wring their hands, knash their teeth, and stick their heads under the cover because it to painful to watch. The other 10% will wake you when it's over. Then you can come out enjoy the benefits provided by them. While this attitude may seem a little harsh, it is just the facts. There has never been a popular long running war in this country, beginning with the Revolutionary War. Never will be. We have a disturbing habit as a nation of quickly forgetting the images of why we are in Afganistan and Iraq to begin with. We were not attacked by a country but by a fanatical group that must be hunted down and killed in whatever hole of a country they are in. It is a necessary job that is done by young people that are well trained to do it. They accept the risk of death and maiming. I admire their courage and dedication and their overwhelming belief that they are doing what is right. I don't like it wish circumstances did not warrant their sacrafices. I believe, as they do, that their cause and efforts will make America safer.
     
  18. Alley Cat

    Alley Cat Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    261
    tennis-n-sc: I share your respect of the brave men/women that are fighting the terrorist scum that attacked our country. The mess in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with that. It sure is easy for us (those that are not fighting and risking their lives every day in the Iraq war) to talk about "what WE have to do" and to use non-relative examples of past wars as an excuse to be in Iraq. I wince when these people talk bravely and patriotically, yet have nothing personal on the line. I am 100% behind the hunting down of the terrorists that attacked us....too bad that this administration took its eye off the ball in that regard; and soldiers are dying because of it. I feel your pain Rory and am continually dumbfounded that there are still people that connect the war in Iraq with the terrorists that attacked us.
     
  19. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,364
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Exactly right.
     
  20. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    Do you suggest that we only go after the terroists that attacked us, or all terroists that profess that their only goal in life is to see to the total demise of America? It appears to me the real terroist danger now exists in Iraq and Syria. Many of us on these boards have been in the military and in war time situations, so there is some first hand knowledge of what is required and who has to pay the price. It is a great thing to be idealistic and a peace lover.
    Who isn't? But regardless of who is president, the reality is that we are in this conflict for a long, long time. I don't think anyone in the civilized world desires conflict or enjoys seeing the suffering brought by war. But, I do not want to see another 9/11 or worse in this country or anywhere else. Now for all you Bush bashers, tell me your experience and suggestions in solving the terrorist situation. Please, no quotes from all the retired generals and congressmen. What are your suggestions to solve the crisis and prevent another 9/11? Do we bring our military home tomorrow from all over the world and pull the covers over our head and hope it all goes away? Or worse yet, forget it ever happened in the first place.
     
  21. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Dmastous, I think I agree with everything you said. I even consider Bush to be a socialist. I voted Libertarian in 2000, however, when I found out Bush had b*a*l*l*s, I voted for him on the next go around. He is the only socialist I have ever voted for. We will run a deficit until everyone is paying a fair share of taxes. I don't even believe you should be able to vote unless you are paying taxes. That is, if the government gives back as much or more than you paid, you shouldn't be able to vote.

    When I say Clinton recession, that is mostly to rile leftists. Sometimes I think it would have been good if Gore had won. Then it would have been Clinton's recession and the towers coming down would have ended liberal rule of any state in the Union, excepting of course, Massachusettes. We'd have 80/20 conservative rule in the senate and Iran would have trembled and blown up their own nuclear program.

    I don't believe Iraqis voting along religious lines is a bad thing, that is probably where I disagree with you. I believe that Muslims can be religious without being terrorists. I know many of them.

    For the rest of you, we are at war against terrorism, not just Bin Laden. How is setting up a democracy in Iraq taking the old "eye off the ball." Name a democracy that openly supports terrorism. We now have the terrorists bogged down in Iraq. How exactly is that taking the "the eye off the ball"?

    I never see any of you saying that Saddam didn't support terrorism. You only say Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Pure liberal sophistry.

    Other than giving Bin Laden a safe house, what did the taliban have to do with 911? I love it, going into Afganistan was alright, but, we should have left Saddam at our backs just to make it fair. Remember, before soldiers set their first foot in Iraq, we blew up two terrorist training camps within Iraq.

    Atatu, I have boys and girls, that have to live with the mess that would be left of the world if we don't fight back. Is that personal enough for you. I have friends in the military as well, they didn't join up to play war games. Phil, I wasn't hoodwinked by Bush, I thought Saddam needed to be taken out long before this. I wasn't there with Mad Halfbrite as she sipped tea with Ill Kim and helped build nuclear power plants in North Korea. Allowing Pakistan and Iran to become nuclear powers wasn't my idea of the greatest foreign policy initiatives that amerca could have undertaken. Liberals are so smart. Great job guys.
     
  22. dmastous

    dmastous Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    I don't think this is a good thing because democracy is not about religion. It's about ideas. It's about making laws that benefit society, not a specific religious group, while hurting others. If you vote entirely on religious lines you show you don't understand that concept. It's still about your religious group having the most say so over another.
    Another thing people seem to loose sight of. Taking the fight to Iraq was, in esssence, taking the battle away from the USA. The concentration has been where it belongs. In the Middle East. It's their fight let them fight on thier ground. There still may be terrorist attacks in the future, but I believe there have been none since 9/11 because they are committing their atrocities elsewhere, against US troops, not civilians. You may feel it's wrong to send troops to Iraq and elsewhere to fight, but as a former Marine, I say that's excatly what they are paid for. It's what I would have been doing had I stayed in.
     
  23. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Saturday Night, Nov 26

    .


    Hello again Deluxe, I’m back after a much deserved break over the holiday. Things seem to have settled down quite a bit here. I hate to stir up the pot again, but I promised I’d be back, so here I am.


    What we were discussing in general: I believe we were discussing paragraphs 55-56 of the President’s Veteran’s Day speech, and my posts 129-130-131, In which I cite five specific reasons why the [bolded] statement is deliberately false and misleading. There is at least one other statement within paragraphs 55-56, that also fit that description, but I’m focusing on this one first. For those of you attempting to make sense out of this now 3 week long soap opera, those 5 assertions I made regarding the Presidents [bolded] statement are :

    1. This statement is patently false.

    2. Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading,

    3. Or that, according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.”

    4. Or that the White House also received intelligence from outside channels with no link to Congress. For example, the White House relied heavily on the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a Department of Defense operation set up in late 2001 to work on issues related to a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.

    5. It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House . I assert the President is deliberately misleading the public because he knows (among other things) Congress does not have access to his Presidential Daily Brief, a top secret document produced each morning for the President of the United States. I have provided three pages of supportive references to support these assertions, which can be found on posts #129-130-131.


    [..]............................[..]


    What the statement was: THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you all for coming, please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad to be back in Pennsylvania and I'm proud to be the first sitting President to visit Monroe County. (Applause.) I'm especially pleased to see so many military veterans with us today. Those who have risked their lives for our freedom have the respect and gratitude of our nation on Veterans Day and on every day. [ skip to paragraphs 55-56 ]

    “While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

    They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security. " That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

    -George W. Bush
    Veterans Day Speech,
    Nov 11, 2005, 11:45 A.M. EST
    Tobyhanna Pennsylvania
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html


    [..]............................[..]


    Why I am focusing on this statement: Deluxe submitted a challenge to provide one example of a “Bush lie that led to war”. I’ve accepted that challenge, but in recent days, the president and his aides have counter attacked against critics with two major arguments -- The key one: Congress and the administration had access to the same intelligence. The next major argument from the White House: Independent reviews have already determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence before the war.It comes as no suprise that both these themes have since been repeated in main stream and right leaning media--you all think it’s true, and I need to address these two layers of false and deliberately misleading statements just to be heard above the roar of misinformation. It’s also very significant to Max’s original thread topic. I am fully aware that this conversation is occurring behind a very real backdrop of a very real war. I do believe, however, that one conversation followed through to the very end is worth a hundred that are started and never finished.


    [..]............................[..]


    Your Last Replies:

    From your post # 154
    And again from post # 155
    You seem quite committed to making this point, posting the same point again, for the fourth time, in # 158
    Hmm... You go to great length, ( posted it 3-4 times as if it were some great discovery) that Bush Is referencing John Kerry’s decision to vote for to disarm Saddam. If you lived in this country you would understand, that this quote is imeadiatley recognizable by anybody who hears it, as a Kerry quote. That’s why Ds are calling it a cheap shot and “partisan attack”. THAT'S the context. That is why Max started this jamboree in the first place. We all know it’s a Kerry quote. I invite you to notice where the [Kerry] quote marks end. They end after the word security. That means the president is through quoting Kerry. That means the President is speaking for himself. The whole rest of that Kerry speech is very interesting, but that’s a whole ‘nuther kettle o fish.
     
  24. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    173-174 continued....

    I politely disagree with your suggestion that I have misunderstood the Presidents comments. I assert that I understand the proper context, and you do not. But hey man, don’t take my word for it. Let me take you by the hand and let’s look at how the rest of the world is determining “proper context”’.

    [..]............................


    ”Proper Context” Example: Conservative Leaning Source

    “WASHINGTON — President Bush carried his battle over the build-up to the war in Iraq across the Pacific Thursday, blasting Democrats for claiming the White House distorted pre-war intelligence."It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the — many of them came to the same conclusion I did," Bush said Thursday from South Korea, where he met with President Roh Moo-hyun. [continued]

    But the president has maintained that lawmakers who voted in favor of using force to oust Saddam Hussein from power saw the same intelligence he did, intelligence that showed that the former Iraqi president did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction His aides say the Democrats' claim that he exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam to build support for the war in Iraq crossed a line and can't be allowed to stand.”

    - Fox News
    November 17, 2005
    Headline: Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims
    Thursday, November 17, 2005
    http://www.hannity.com/index/news-app/story.322/menu./sec./home.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175847,00.html


    [..]............................


    ”Proper Context” Example: Conservative Leaning Source

    “The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?”

    - The Wall Street Journal
    Editorial Page
    Thursday, November 3, 2005
    “The Clare Luce Democrats
    How they're lying about "he lied us into war."


    [..]...........................


    ”Proper Context” Example : Left leaning Source

    "The president and his aides have counterattacked against critics with two major arguments -- the key one: Congress and the administration had access to the same intelligence. . . .

    "In a general sense, that is true. U.S. intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and said so in a national intelligence estimate Congress had access to before the war. "But it is not accurate to say Congress and the administration looked at all the same intelligence. The White House had access to far more than lawmakers did. Presidential daily briefs on intelligence are never given to Congress. Some intelligence available to the White House but not to Congress gave reason to doubt some of the president's blunt pre-war assertions, for example, that Iraq had helped al Qaeda on weapons. . . .

    "The next major argument from the White House: Independent reviews have already determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence before the war. "But, in fact, no commission or committee has yet spoken on whether the White House misrepresented pre-war intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee, under pressure from Democrats, is working on it....

    - Washington Post
    By Dan Froomkin
    Special to washingtonpost.com
    Friday, November 18, 2005; 2:33 PM


    [..]...........................


    ”Proper Context” Example: Left leaning Source

    “Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

    Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

    It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.” [continued]

    -The New York Times
    Opinion Editorial, Nov 15, 2005
    “Decoding Mr Bush’s Denials”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/o...990d7c041&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


    [..]..............................


    Proper Context Example: Moderate

    "President George W. Bush has suddenly shifted rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Until recently, the administration's line was basically, "Everything we are saying and doing is right." It was a line that held him in good stead, especially with his base, which admired his constancy above all else. Now, though, as his policies are failing and even his base has begun to abandon him, a new line is being trotted out: "Yes, we were wrong about some things, but everybody else was wrong, too, so get over it."

    I Was Wrong, but So Were You
    Parsing Bush's new mantra.
    By Fred Kaplan
    Posted Monday, Nov. 14, 2005, at 6:39 PM ET
    http://www.slate.com/id/2130295/

    [..]..............................


    Bottom line

    Deluxe, I ask the question again, forget about the intentional portion "of intentionally false and misleading" for 11 seconds. Based on everthing I’ve presented in posts # 129-130-131, would you describe the Presidents statements was false and misleading? Yes or No.

    Your first objection to my question was the notion that the PDB was a red herring. We seem to have straightened that one out. Your second objection was based on the premise that I did not have a proper understanding of the Presidents comments, that I had missed the context somehow. I assert, once again, that I have not. You have suggested that I have chosen a false interpretation of the Presidents comments only to prove he is a liar. I invite you to reconsider who is choosing false interpretations, and for what reason.

    This is really simple. 100 members of congress, did not get the same Intell. John Kerry did not get the same intell. No members of Congress get the same intell, ever.

    1. The Presidents statement is patently false.

    2. Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading,

    3. Or that, according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.”

    4. Or that the White House also received intelligence from outside channels with no link to Congress. For example, the White House relied heavily on the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a Department of Defense operation set up in late 2001 to work on issues related to a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.

    5. It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House. I assert the President is deliberately misleading the public because he knows (among other things) Congress does not have access to his Presidential Daily Brief, a top secret document produced each morning for the President of the United States. I have provided three pages of supportive references to support these assertions, which can be found on posts #129-130-131.

    The Bush administration was not just a recipient of intelligence, it was also a participant in the decisions regarding what intelligence on Iraq would be emphasized and disseminated. One Example of many: The administration's use of intelligence provided by captured Al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi demonstrated a complete disregard for dissenting views within the intelligence community. In early 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency sent a report to the NSC and the White House that expressed serious doubts about the information provided by al-Libi. Despite the DIA's clear objections, his claims later became the basis for the alleged Al Qaeda-Iraq link put forth by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 5, 2003, speech before the United Nations Security Council.

    Best Regards
    - Jack
     
  25. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    Chicago, I have finally seen the light. If Saddam's lawyers don't call you and the US democratic party leaders to be witnesses, they have taken their "eyes off the ball." Why don't you volunteer to be Saddams lawyer. I think you could do a good job. Look at all the free work you have done just to prove that Bush lied about Saddam being a terrorist. Bush should be tried for war crimes, aye(that is in case you me be Canadian), and Saddam needs to be reimbursed for false imprisonment.

    Disclaimer: I don't believe Bush should be tried for war crimes. That is pure sarcasm.
     
  26. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Here is the "proper context", as I see it

    .

    Here is the proper context, as I see it.

    "A blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint was drawn up by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz George W Bush's younger brother Jeb, and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

    The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

    The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.”

    "A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. "
    -- Rebuilding America’s Defenses, From pages 50-51

    PNAC Home Page
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/

    PNAC Blueprint for U.S. Global Domination
    “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, September 2000
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    PNAC Letter to Clinton urging Regime change in Iraq, 1998
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm

    -Jack
     
  27. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Hello, "the jerk",

    I am taking a passionate and principled stand, on an important issue. I understand there are folks who disagree with me. I respect the opposing viewpoint.

    Conservatives who suggest that questioning the motives for war are improper might consider the Presidents recent words.


    [..]..............................


    “I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.”

    -George W. Bush
    Veterans Day Speech,
    Nov 11, 2005, 11:45 A.M. EST
    Tobyhanna Pennsylvania
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html

    [..]....................................


    I also invite you to consider the following events:

    “A husband and wife who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president’s Fourth of July appearance aren’t going down without a fight: They will be represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union as they contest the trespassing charges against them Thursday morning in Charleston Municipal Court. Police took Nicole and Jeff Rank away in handcuffs from the event, which was billed as a presidential appearance, not a campaign rally. They were wearing T-shirts that read, I Love America, I Hate Bush. Spectators who wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons were allowed to stay. “We weren’t doing anything wrong,” said Jeff Rank. The couple, who said they had tickets just like everybody else, said they simply stood around the Capitol steps with the rest of the spectators. “We sang the national anthem.”
    http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Couple_in_antiibush_tee_071504.htm

    [..]

    “CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- A dozen war protesters including Daniel Ellsberg were arrested Wednesday for setting up camp near President Bush's ranch in defiance of new local bans on roadside camping and parking. Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, estimated it was his 70th arrest for various protests since the 1970s. "Those of us who finally saw through the Vietnam war saw through this war, and all the actions that were necessary to end the Vietnam war will be necessary here," Ellsberg said Wednesday before his arrest. "I think the American people will get us out of this (war)." Ellsberg became famous for his release of the secret documents, which indicated the government had deceived the public about whether the Vietnam war could be won and the extent of casualties. [continued] During the last several weeks of their summer protest, the activists had camped on a private 1-acre lot that a sympathetic landowner let them use. That land is about a mile from Bush's ranch.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/23/crawfordwarprotest.ap/index.html

    [..]

    “In 2002 Brett Bursey, a South Carolinian, was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign near a hangar where Bush was speaking. The government contended that the protected zone encompassed an intersection near the Columbia Metropolitan Airport where Brett Bursey was standing with his sign. Bursey said that hundreds of Bush supporters stood around him, along with four other protesters, all awaiting the president. In a scene that has played itself out repeatedly during this campaign, most anti-Bush protesters that day were kept in a "free-speech zone" located three-quarters of a mile away—well out of ear- and camera-shot of the president. Bursey and the other protesters were told several times to move—and did—but Bursey never went quite far enough away to placate the Secret Service. Secret Service agent Holly Able testified at trial that she then gave him four options: He could go to the demonstration area, get in line for the rally (if he had a ticket), go home, or go to jail. When he refused to disappear from sight, Bursey was arrested by airport police, thrown into a police wagon, and taken away. He was slapped with a local charge at first—trespassing—but that was quickly dropped. Bursey, after all, had been standing on public land. “
    http://www.slate.com/id/2107012

    [..]

    Best regards to the poster Known as "thejerk"
    -Jack
     
  28. thejerk

    thejerk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    472
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chicago, I have finally seen the light. If Saddam's lawyers don't call you and the US democratic party leaders to be witnesses, they have taken their "eyes off the ball." Why don't you volunteer to be Saddams lawyer. I think you could do a good job. Look at all the free work you have done just to prove that Bush lied about Saddam being a terrorist. Bush should be tried for war crimes, aye(that is in case you may be Canadian), and Saddam needs to be reimbursed for false imprisonment.

    Disclaimer: I don't believe Bush should be tried for war crimes. That is pure sarcasm.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  29. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    I have responded to the comment above. That response can be found in my reply #177. How's the weather down in Jacksonville? It's a bit nippy up here. Even had a little snow over the holiday.

    Best Regards
    -Jack
     
  30. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I really don't understand why people think that is an attack. All he does is say Kerry voted for the war, and quotes Kerry giving Kerry's own reasoning. How does that make an attack?

    (for reference):
    "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

    They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)"

    It is certainly true that it is your President speaking after the Kerry quote, but that doesn't mean that "the same intelligence" means the same intelligence that the President had access to. He has not been talking about how he voted, or what his reasoning was. He has been talking about how Kerry voted, and what Kerry's reasoning was.

    Consider also the point your President is making. Think about the reasoning the "That's why" invites. He is telling us why the hundred Democrats voted for the war. He gives three reasons: 1. Intelligence agencies around the world agreed with your Administration's assessment. 2. The UN resolutions. 3. Their support of Kerry.

    Now under your interpretation of his argument, your President, in the middle of making that reasoned argument, switches tack entirely, tells a lie that anyone with even a basic understanding of American government (ie not me :)) knows is false, and then switches back after his 7 word aside to finish his point by pointing out that those three reasons were the reason those hundred Democrats voted for the war.

    Under my interpretation, the 7 words that you call a lie fit in completely logically with his reasoned argument. The third reason those Democrats voted for the war was because they supported Kerry, and those seven words are an obvious reinforcement of that point - those hundred Democrats had access to the same intelligence as Kerry.
     
  31. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I'm going to ignore the parts of your post where you are quoting some news writer's understanding of what your President thinks, or what his position is. Quite frankly, it is irrelevant, left leaning or right leaning.

    The context is not some other speech, or some news report. The context is the President's own speech. The words and sentences around the seven words you claim are a lie.

    Here, he certainly does not say the Democrats had access to all the intelligence that he had. He says that he did not mislead the American people about the intelligence the Democrats looked at. That's completely different, and completely true.
     
  32. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Saturday Night, Nov 26

    You have one basic flaw in the presentation of your argument. The rest of the civilized world does not see it your way. You present this like it is an ontological discussion btwn two people. it's not my interpretation vs your interpretation. It is your interpretation vs the rest of the world. the rest of the worlds interpretations are not irrelevant.

    I realize you are not from America. Given that fact, I have gone through the effort and time to lay it all at your feet. I have provided you with five examples from major US news sources. 2 left, 2 right and one in the middle (as best as I can tell). I could supply you with a hundred more. You are entirely welcome to interpret the Presidents words as you choose. It is a plain and simple fact that the rest of the world does not share your view.

    Sadly, I am beginning to lose faith in the value of us continuing this dialogue. You seem to be a very bright fellow, I admire your willingness to hang in here with me for as long as you have. But as best I can tell, your knowledge of US Politics seems limited to one very recent speech, and one newspaper article. I understand that I made a claim which you had every right to question. I am doing my best to honor your request. However, I have a hunch we will never agree on anything.

    I can lead this horse to water but I can't make him drink.

    Take care Deluxe
    -Jack
     
  33. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    dupe delete - browser cache gone wacky.
     
  34. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    The fact that various news organisations, which you characterise as "the rest of the world", are claiming to know what your President was trying to say has no relevance to the words of your President's original speech. If you want to understand a phrase in his speech, you go and look at the actual speech, you consider the logical structure of the argument, you consider which words reference which bits of the speech, the meanings of the individual words...etc etc. What you don't do is go to some random other people and ask what they think he means without examing the speech for yourself.

    I have shown you that your interpretation of what your President said doesn't fit in with the logical structure of his argument, and pointed out that nowhere in that whole paragraph you quote is your President talking about himself, so it seems illogical to jump to the conclusion that in the seven words in question, he suddenly switches to talking about himself, when the text of the speech does not demand that conclusion.

    I have presented you with what I believe he was saying. My interpretation fits the logical structure of his argument perfectly, and fits in with the fact that your President had just been talking about Kerry.

    It is extremely unnatural to interpret what your President said in the manner you have. But even if it was the other way round, and it was my interpretation that was the unnatural one, given the existence of that other interpretation, you cannot rely on that statement as a basis for accusing your President of being a liar, let alone say that he "lied us into war".
     
  35. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    Arrg. Deep breath. What you do not understand is that The Bush Administration has been misleading the public on this issue for some time now. Look for yourself, some of these sources pre-date the Presidents speech. Some are only a few days after. The Presidents most recent speech is only the most recent incarnation. I understand what you are pointing to. Your point is that maybe Bush was saying-- the Ds had the same intell as Kerry did. I’m suggesting the president was saying-- congress had the same intell that the whitehouse has. We seem to be arguing over the proper interpretation .

    If my interpretation seems “extremely unnatural” to you, I suggest you contact the following news agencies, and members of Congress, for they seem to be taking “extremely unnatural” views as well. If you [ by your own admission possesses a limited knowledge of US politics] have the bold audacity to suggest that you have the correct interpretation, and all of these folks, including myself have it wrong, knock yer self out.

    1. FOX NEWS - right leaning
    2. The Wall Street Journal - right leaning
    3. The Washington Post - left leaning
    4. The New York Times - left leaning
    5. CNN - Moderate

    [..].....................


    “But the president has maintained that lawmakers who voted in favor of using force to oust Saddam Hussein from power saw the same intelligence he did, intelligence that showed that the former Iraqi president did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction. His aides say the Democrats' claim that he exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam to build support for the war in Iraq crossed a line and can't be allowed to stand.”

    - Fox News
    November 17, 2005
    Headline: Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims
    Thursday, November 17, 2005
    http://www.hannity.com/index/news-app/story.322/menu./sec./home.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175847,00.html


    [..]...................


    “The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?”

    - The Wall Street Journal
    Editorial Page
    Thursday, November 3, 2005
    “The Clare Luce Democrats
    How they're lying about "he lied us into war."

    [..]....................


    “Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

    Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

    It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.” [continued]

    -The New York Times
    Opinion Editorial, Nov 15, 2005
    “Decoding Mr Bush’s Denials”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/o...990d7c041&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


    [..]....................


    CNN- ANDERSON COOPER: Well, some Democrats are saying the pre-war intelligence was cooked by the White House. The administration is saying the Democrats had the exact same intelligence the White House did. But is that really true?

    We asked CNN national correspondent David Ensor to look back and separate facts from fictions.

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president and his aides have counterattacked against critics with two major arguments -- the key one: Congress and the administration had access to the same intelligence.

    -CNN Transcripts
    Aired November 17, 2005 - 22:00 ET

    [..]....................


    SENATOR JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV) : “I mean, one of things that they -- that Chairman Roberts likes to do is to try to point out that there were a lot of Democrats who voted for the -- going to the United Nations, and if that didn't work, going to the war. And then people say, "Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had." And I'm here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don't have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief, we don't have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don't release their -- an administration which tends not to release -- not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others -- they control information. There's a lot of intelligence that we don't get that they have. “

    -- Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee
    http://rockefeller.senate.gov/
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006


    [..]....................


    Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), who served as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made this point during an appearance on the October 8, 2004, edition of CNN's American Morning:

    BILL HEMMER: [CNN ANCHOR] Back to the first question and your first answer. Senator Kerry had access to the same intelligence. And again, he voted for the war.

    BOB KERREY: That isn't true. The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress -- we believe these would be used for centrifuges, didn't deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it's unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.
    -- Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Ex-Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman

    Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE)
    Former Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman
    Senate Years of Service: 1989-2001
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_kerrey.htm
    http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000146
    http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/08/ltm.01.html


    Bottom Line
    See posts 129-130-131 for a full explanation why Congress did not, and does not get the same intell as the Whitehouse.

    Best,
    -Jack
     
  36. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Indeed, what was the proper interpretation? You haven't argued with what I've presented as the logical structure of your President's argument, or the meaning of the words, or the fact that your President clearly wasn't talking about himself anywhere else in that paragraph. All you have said is (to paraphrase) "Look! All these other people say that he meant what I say he meant, so I must be right!"

    If you are going to show your President to be a liar, you have to do better than that. My "interpretation" of what he said is obviously the only natural way to read those seven words in context. You say that your President has been "misleading the public" (a different charge to calling him a liar BTW) on this matter for some time now. If that's true, you must be able to come up with a better quote than that.

    Politicians and news agencies have a vested interest in quoting other politicians out of context. I do not. You quote six news organisations commenting on the claim, but not one of them quotes an actual statement by your President, neither do they make any analysis of what he actually said. They simply assert what his position and call him a liar.
     
  37. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,274
    That is correct. Those "other people" happen to represent FOX News, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN and a couple US Congressmen. Apparently, you know better. Perhaps you might avail them of your vast expertise on the topic, when you get a spare moment.

    Not exactly, what I said was “The Bush Administration has been misleading the public on this issue for some time now”. In my book, a misleading statement, in which the speaker believes the statement to be true at the time is not a lie. However, if the speaker is intending to mislead then this is a lie in my book. And my book would the dictionary.


    [..].............................


    lie

    intransitive verb  (past and past participle lied, present participle ly·ing, 3rd person present singular lies)
    Definitions:
     
    1. deliberately say something untrue: to say something that is not true in a conscious effort to deceive somebody
    He lied about his age in order to get into the army.

    2. be deceptive: to give a false impression
    Don't forget that appearances can lie.

    noun  (plural lies)
    Definitions:
     
    1. falsehood: a false statement made deliberately
    She told me she wasn't seeing anyone else, but that was a lie.

    2. false appearance: a situation based on deception or a false impression
    beginning to feel that my whole life is a lie

    http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861696566/lie.html


    [..].............................



    I have honored your request for a better quote--and offered a few more for good measure. Notice the dates, Veterans day is Nov 11.


    [..].............................



    The White House
    For Immediate Release
    Office of the Press Secretary
    November 17, 2005

    Question: Mr. President, Vice President Cheney called it reprehensible for critics to question how you took the country to war, but Senator Hagel says it's patriotic to ask those kinds of questions. Who do you think is right?

    PRESIDENT BUSH: The Vice President.

    Question: Why?

    PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted to support the decision I made. It's irresponsible to use politics. This is serious business making -- winning this war. But it's irresponsible to do what they've done. So I agree with the Vice President.

    -President Bush and President Roh
    Discuss Strong U.S.-Korean Alliance
    Hotel Hyundai
    Gyeongju, Republic of Korea
    November 17, 2005
    Whitehouse Speech Archives
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051117.html



    [..]........................................



    The White House
    For Immediate Release
    Office of the Press Secretary
    September 4, 2004

    “THE PRESIDENT: In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. I went to the United States Congress and members of both political parties looked at the same intelligence I looked at, remembered the same history that I remembered, and came to the same conclusion that my administration had come to, he was a threat. My opponent looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion, and voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.”

    Before the Commander-in-Chief commits troops into combat, we must try all means to solve a problem. That's why I went to the United Nations, in the hope that diplomacy would work. The United Nations Security Council looked at the same intelligence we looked at, remembered the history we remembered, came to the same conclusion that we came to, Saddam was a threat. [ continued ]

    -President and Mrs. Bush's Remarks
    Victory 2004 Rally
    Erie Veterans Memorial Stadium
    Erie, Pennsylvania
    September 4, 2004
    2:45 P.M. EDT
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040904-6.html


    [..]........................................



    “Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favour of authorising force against Saddam Hussein.These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.”

    -Vice President Dick Cheney
    Thursday, 17 November 2005,
    10:09 GMT
    BBC News
    “Excerpts: Cheney on Iraq critics”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4445046.stm



    [..]........................................



    The White House
    For Immediate Release
    Office of the Press Secretary
    November 11, 2005

    “And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

    -George W Bush,
    Veterans Day Speech
    Nov. 2005
    Tobyhanna Pennsylvania
    White House Website, Speech Archives
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html


    [..]........................................


    In a Nutshell: "President George W. Bush has suddenly shifted rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Until recently, the administration's line was basically, "Everything we are saying and doing is right." It was a line that held him in good stead, especially with his base, which admired his constancy above all else. Now, though, as his policies are failing and even his base has begun to abandon him, a new line is being trotted out: "Yes, we were wrong about some things, but everybody else was wrong, too, so get over it."

    "I Was Wrong, but So Were You
    Parsing Bush's new mantra"
    By Fred Kaplan
    Posted Monday, Nov. 14, 2005, at 6:39 PM ET
    http://www.slate.com/id/2130295/


    Bottom Line

    The President and his aides have counterattacked against critics with two major arguments -- the key one: Congress and the White House had access to the same intelligence, and this explains why many of them came to the same conclusions the President did.

    1. This is patently false.

    2. Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading,

    3. Or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.”

    4. Or that the White House also received intelligence from outside channels with no link to Congress. For example, the White House relied heavily on the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a Department of Defense operation set up in late 2001 to work on issues related to a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.

    5. The Bush administration was not merely a recipient of intelligence, but also a participant in the decisions regarding what intelligence on Iraq would be emphasized and disseminated. The Central Intelligence Agency exists in the federal executive branch of the US Government, which is headed by the President.

    6. It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House". I assert The President is deliberately misleading the public because he knows (among other things) Congress does not have access to his Presidential Daily Brief, A top secret document produced each morning for the President of the United States.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
    http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

    237 false, and/or misleading statements
    on Iraq can be found here:
    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
    MINORITY STAFF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
    MARCH 16, 2004
    http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs...record_rep.pdf

    Additional references found on post #129-130-131

    Best Regards
    -Jack
     
  38. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    The quotes you have fall into categories:

    1."I saw the intelligence Congress saw." - Unambiguously true.
    2."Congress saw the intelligence I saw." - Depends on what "the intelligence means".
    3."Congress had access to the intelligence." - Depends on what "the intelligence means".

    You don't have any quote that says:

    "Congress had access to the all the intelligence I had access to."

    Which is how some of the press and some politicians seem to be interpreting the three categories above. If you want to transform category 2 or 3 into a false statement, you have to show that "the intelligence" is limited by the context to "all the intelligence your President had access to."
     

Share This Page